There was a question on Facebook about How the SRK is supposed to lower your carbon footprint when it is likely recharged by coal based power source.
And another one in the same post about how much fully recharging the SRK overnight would raise someone's electric bill.

This argument never seems to get old. Most thinking people are aware of all that, but it's good to be reminded once in a while. As always, it's a valid point. BUT... As tech advances, the fossil fueled plants will be better able to capture and scrub at the source as apposed to the individual vehicles emitting junk everywhere with not a whole lot of chance for more advanced comparable ICE scrubbing tech on the horizon. Efforts and progress are underway to lessen the dependency on fossil fueled electric generation. The biggest answer to the first question is... According to Arcimoto, the SRK has an MPGe of 230. Seven to Ten times the mpg efficiency that most ICE cars have that are on the road today. So... The SRK has a carbon footprint of AT LEAST one seventh to one tenth of comparable ICE vehicles on that basis alone! It should cost a small fraction as much to drive as an ICE vehicle too. The standard battery pack rating is 12 kWh/70 mi. The upgrade pack rating is 20 kWh/130 mi. Find out what you're paying for a kWh of electricity and multiply by either 12 or 20 depending on which pack you plan to use in your SRK. That will give you the approximate cost of a full charge. Take your estimated miles per month and divide that by how many miles (either 70 or 130) you'll get out of your full charge. Then multiply THAT by the cost of your full charge.

I ran a calculation on that. First, the MPGe figure is totally bogus. It is calculated according to an EPA formula, and is based on the energy content of the fuel in the vehicle and not on the full cycle of energy production. In my opinion the EPA is totally dishonest about this. I believe fervently in helping the environment and building a sustainable future, but I cannot support lying to accomplish this goal. Frankly, I don't care if Trump gets rid of the EPA, as long as something better is put in its place.

I based my calculations on the actual CO2e footprint for gasoline and for electricity produced from coal or natural gas. My definition of MPGe is based on carbon footprint, not on onboard energy. Here is what I found.

SRK running on electricity from coal: 55 MPGe (72% of the emissions of a Prius getting 40 MPG)
SRK running on electricity from natural gas: 94 MPGe (43% of the emissions of a Prius getting 40 MPG)

Incidentally, 55 MPGe is exactly the same as I get on the motorcycle. I think these numbers are plausible in the real world.
I plan to add enough panels to my solar system to power the SRK, so it will have zero carbon footprint, as does my house.

Some further calculations, based on current energy costs in Wyoming (electricity from coal):
The SRK energy cost per mile is 45% of that for my motorcycle, if I buy the electricity at residential rates.
If I drive 20 miles per day on the average, I can power it with 3 solar panels (340W each), at an installed cost estimated at $4080.

If anyone wants a copy of the spreadsheets I used for these calculations, contact me at danc19fr@yahoo.com.

Now that we´re in the middle of the BMW/Merc Diesel Scandal, the European press has now come around to the view thae EVs are the LEAST ecologically advantageous alternative (and that wind turbines will never recoup the energy expended in their production and upkeep!)

It wasn´t all that long ago that governments were subsidising the purchase of diesel cars to replace petrol engines.

I have studied the EREOI (Energy Return On Energy Invested) for EVs and wind turbines and photovoltaics. Frankly, everything I have seen that says they use more energy to produce than they will save is lies. The lies are based on dishonest use of data, or made up data, or no data at all.

As to diesels, it is a mixed bag. They produce more local pollution, but less CO2 emissions than gasoline powered cars. The diesel pollution washes out of the atmosphere in a few weeks, so in rural areas they are a good environmental choice.

They aren't living in the real world. Fuel prices are low, and only a small fraction of buyers are concerned about the environment or the future enough to act on it. What we have done so far to encourage efficient transportation, the US government is undoing as fast as it can. Like almost all the media, they believe that hydrogen power will be clean. Apparently are unaware that hydrogen is produced inefficiently from fossil fuels. Although in theory hydrogen could be produced efficiently from renewable energy, nobody seems to be working to make that a reality.

Arcimoto has a chance to succeed because they are small and the vehicle is simple, so they can survive with a relatively small market share. Even if most buyers don't care about the environment or sustainability, there may be enough who do to support a small enterprise.